Return to the Article
Posted on 06/26/2009 12:44:26 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Return to the Article |
I just watched the classic movie "High Noon" (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, "He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down the street". A recently released outlaw was coming back to town on the noon train to deliver vengeance against the sheriff who put him away. His gang of three arrived early to help their leader take out the sheriff.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_at_high_noon.html at June 26, 2009 - 03:39:17 PM EDT
Sorry, but when you put a candidate up against someone they never ran against a decade later, you are conducting a different test entirely, and thus different results can be expected.
That’s why these conditions are important.
We are discussing running a losing candidate against the ticket they lost against again, specifically.
And that is why you have to limit your comparisons to like situations.
You want to loosen the conditions to the point where they are no longer relevant, invalidating the test completely.
Hell, why not use George Bush as an example while you’re at it?
George Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, but 8 years later George Bush beat Al Gore.
Hey, look at that! My whole hypothesis has been disproved by your standards.
No matter how you look at it, Palin on the ticket still didn’t produce enough votes to defeat 0bama.
We have no way of knowing how many votes she added or took away from the ticket. All we know is it wasn’t anywhere near enough.
She doesn’t produce the kind of votes needed to defeat 0bama.
That has been tested and proved.
Newt might not be the candidate to take on 0bama in 2012.
But his participation in the GOP primary sure would elevate the discourse.
He doesn’t have to win the nomination to set the tone and frame the debate.
He is needed to identify the issues, focus the debate, and challenge the other candidates with real ideas.
It will be up to them to out-do him.
And regardless of who ultimate wins the nomination, the GOP candidate will be stronger for it.
You must be Megan McCain.
McCain was THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM WITH THE TICKET. Why vote for a Republican trying to be a liberal when you can simply vote for a liberal?
You are giving McCain a total pass. The Vice President is basically irrelevant to the election. Always has been, always will be (as long as the VP has as little power as he does).
By your reasoning, Joe Lieberman is THE reason Gore lost in 2000.
“Newt might not be the candidate to take on 0bama in 2012.
But his participation in the GOP primary sure would elevate the discourse.
He doesn’t have to win the nomination to set the tone and frame the debate.
He is needed to identify the issues, focus the debate, and challenge the other candidates with real ideas.
It will be up to them to out-do him.
And regardless of who ultimate wins the nomination, the GOP candidate will be stronger for it.”
You are living in an alternate political universe. The candidate putting forth the best ideas AND WINNING THE NOMINATION sets the discourse, not the loser.
Newt won’t be the king maker, here. He has compromised his credibility with conservatives. As I said earlier, Newt’s best days are far behind him.
National Security
Economic Security
Economic Freedom
Personal Freedom
Those are what will drive the debate. The candidate who frames his/her arguments in those terms will be the nominee. IMO, Palin has one of those 3 covered in spades. And she is quietly working the other 3.
All I hear from the rest of the GOP is liberal-talk.
You still haven't addressed my fundamental questions. And I don't think you want to.
I would've expected more of a John Galt fan.
What do you think?
McCain was the #1 problem on the ticket, and Palin was the #2 problem on the ticket.
Normally VP candidates don’t matter, this much is true.
But everyone knows that this past election was different.
I paid attention to the election.
I am well aware it was agreed by all that McCain was irrelevant, that Sarah Palin was the GOP ticket.
She got all the attention. She was the star. it was her vs. 0bama.
McCain and Biden were completely side-lined.
It was less than a year ago. You were there, don’t you remember?
And 0bama trounced Palin-McCain by 10 million votes and nearly 10 points.
You can’t act now as though Sarah didn’t really count on the ticket after all that (but at the same time claim that she was the only one who pulled in votes.)
No matter how you come at it, the fact remains that Palin’s name was right there on the ticket for all to vote for, and the voters decided not to in record amounts.
Palin was also making deep inroads into Obama when McCain’s camp put the muzzle on her and they walked back her comments... at the same time McCain started praising Obama and MCCAIN voted for TARP!.. not Palin... McCain also refused to allow Palin to go up into Michigan, etc., and campaign.
Littler cp was born unglued.
So McCain put forward the best ideas and set the discourse last year?
It didn’t seem that way to me.
Primaries with no incumbent are rarely dominated by one candidate.
It is often smaller candidates who ultimately don’t win who set the agenda and direction of the debate.
Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter did that early on in the 2008 primary on immigration.
Had they stayed in the race, McCain probably would not have rebounded.
And yet neither were ever going to win.
As far as I know Palin has never run for President. If you are going to blame McCain's loss on her that's disingenuous. McCain admitted she probably got more votes than he did. Obama didn't win in any landslide either. I propose that if it wasn't for the Economic Tsunami McCain may have won.
As far as Newt. I don’t see him beating Obama. The MSM would portray him as the one who lead the Impeachment of Clinton. And then there is the marital infidelity issue. You know they would be all over that. I would have real issues supporting him for that reason. Dumb move on his part.
We shall she how this campaign works out. I'm keeping an open mind but I don't see how we could find a better candidate than Sarah right now. It's her turn. If she loses you can blame me but I have this feeling she can beat the Chosen One. He's going down like Carter.
Grasping at typos (and quickly corrected ones at that) is a sign of a desperate argument.
It sounds like a lot of excuses from a Palin apologist trying to blame others for Palin’s inability to attract votes.
Couple things here. 1. Like half of your argument is based on one thing that Sarah said. If you look far back almost everyone will have made some grammatical errors. 2. No matter what you say, McCain ran against Obama. I know several people in my personal life who were not going to vote for McCain till Sarah was added to the ticket. Some still refused. She added manymanymany votes, look at the polls from last year. 3. Palin can beat Obama, especially after four years of this crap that “The One” is gonna throw on us.
Oh and if you screen my comment to look for any sort of error in spelling or grammar so you can use ad-homonym attacks against me. Forget about it. There are too many of those going around.
Like it or not, Palin is a major player, and she has incredible approval in Alaska, she has made a real difference there with RESULTS. She attracts large crowds and is the number one target of the left right now for a reason. They are scared of her.
She is CONSERVATIVE, young, attractive, family oriented and she DOES communicate conservatism.
I have no idea what planet your on if you cannot see that.
I would questions anyones political judgment to call such a person a “dim bulb”.
Facts and logic play no part in your thinking, do they? That's ok though, your posts are amusing. :^)
Actually, 0bama did win in a landslide.
there were more than 6 points separating 0bama and McPalin.
It was almost 10 points and 10 million votes. That is quantifiable landslide by all accounts. It was larger than Reagan’s landslide against Carter, and Bush Sr’s landslide against Dukakis.
I’m not blaming McCain’s loss on Palin.
I am saying that she was unable to pull in the votes to win.
That’s not the same thing as saying McCain would have won without her.
She just didn’t help. Not enough to beat 0bama.
And that is a pretty good indication that she would not be able to beat 0bama in a rematch, either.
And I know that one of my points is technically a logical fallacy. Just an example.
I can’t even wrap my head around what she’s saying
I agree. You obviously can't. But that's your problem.
Just when I think I’ve gotten to the bottom of it, I find yet another condition lurking just below.
Forest=|trees. Look at the overall picture instead of overanalising.
Who is she criticizing? Letterman for telling the joke?
She's already done that, now it';s a comment on the culture
Or the people who get away with thinking his joke is acceptable? Or the people who think that it’s funny to get away with thinking that Letterman’s joke is acceptable?
"a so-called comedian to get away with being able". How in the frilly heck do you associate the words "get away" with anyone other than Letterman?
What exactly is she trying to say?
Letterman made jokes which associated Palin's 14 year old daughter with both A-Rod and Spitzer. That was unacceptable.
In the face of criticism, Letterman eventually made a lame-ass "apology" which consisted of claiming it was his job as a dumb comedian, and retelling the jokes to a studio-audience which was being prompted to applause.
There was concensus among the chattering classes that that "apology" was acceptable.
It wasn't. And it is not unreasonable to point out that the view it was shows a degradation of American culture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.